In 2026, it is easy to find four different figures for the same question: how much do Flamengo, Fluminense, Vasco and Botafogo spend on payroll? The problem is that many answers mix concepts. An annual financial statement shows expenses recognized throughout 2025; a news report may divide that total by 13; a database such as Capology estimates first-team salaries; and the CBF Financial Sustainability System uses its own definition of squad cost. These figures can be correct within their methods and still not be directly comparable.
The most consistent comparison available for the four clubs starts with the 2025 financial statements and the SportsValue survey published in 2026. Under this scope, annual salary-related spending was approximately R$ 696 million at Flamengo, R$ 522 million at Fluminense, R$ 335 million at Botafogo SAF and R$ 291 million at Vasco SAF. SportsValue itself defines this metric as salaries, image rights and bonuses. It is useful for measuring the scale of spending during the financial year, but it should not be treated as the monthly payroll in force in August 2026.
The main point is this: there is no universal line in the 2025 annual financial statements called “monthly payroll of the professional squad in 2026.” To reach such a figure, one has to choose a period, scope and set of components. When those criteria change, the total changes with them.
The 2025 ranking is the best common baseline, but it is not a snapshot of 2026
The ranking published by SportsValue places Flamengo, Fluminense, Botafogo and Vasco at R$ 696 million, R$ 522 million, R$ 335 million and R$ 291 million, respectively, in salary-related spending in 2025. In May 2026, R7 reproduced the logic for leading clubs and converted some annual totals into monthly equivalents by dividing them by 13, to account for Brazil’s 13th salary. Thus, R$ 696 million appears as about R$ 53 million per month; R$ 522 million as R$ 40 million; and R$ 335 million as R$ 26 million.
That division is an arithmetic normalization, not a payroll observed in a specific month of 2026. It spreads across 13 installments expenses that occurred throughout 2025, even though bonuses, signing fees, prize payments, vacation pay, payroll charges and squad changes are not uniform
from month to month. Vasco, with R$ 291 million in the SportsValue ranking, would come to about R$ 22.4 million if the same total were simply divided by 13, but that would still be only an equivalent based on the previous financial year.
By August 2026, the squads had already gone through signings, departures, renewals and adjustments. Therefore, calling the 2025 annual figures a “2026 payroll” without explaining their origin creates a level of precision the data does not have.
Flamengo: the R$ 696 million can be reproduced from the financial statements
In Flamengo’s case, the 2025 financial statements make it possible to see where the ranking figure comes from. The note on the cost of social and sporting activities records R$ 525.089 million in salaries, payroll charges and employee benefits and R$ 171.094 million in image rights. The sum reaches R$ 696.183 million, practically the R$ 696 million reported in the survey.
The same note separately records R$ 243.716 million in amortization of rights over players and R$ 131.954 million in spending on matches and competitions. This shows why “payroll” and “football cost” are not synonyms. If someone adds amortization to salaries and image rights, the figure rises sharply, but that raw sum also cannot automatically be presented as the regulatory squad cost, because the accounting note has a broader scope and the SSF requires specific classification.
The financial statements themselves help explain the 2025 increase: management says that the growth in salaries, payroll charges and benefits compared with 2024 mainly reflected the evolution of the men’s professional football payroll and prize payments resulting from sporting performance. Even so, the item is annual and accounting-based, not a table of individual salaries for the current squad.
Fluminense: the R$ 522 million includes more than players’ base salaries
At Fluminense, the note on salaries, payroll charges and benefits for athletes and other employees totals R$ 521.663 million in 2025. The breakdown shows R$ 188.706 million in salaries for athletes and other employees, R$ 22.965 million in contractual signing fees, R$ 104.582 million in image rights for athletes, R$ 13.014 million in football service providers and R$ 17.344 million in service providers from other areas.
In addition, it lists R$ 98.894 million in prizes and bonuses, R$ 22.090 million in vacation provisions, R$ 15.584 million in 13th salary provisions, R$ 4.992 million in medical assistance, R$ 5.507 million in other items and R$ 27.983 million in related taxes. The note itself clarifies that “other areas” include Olympic sports, back office and other areas of the club.
This composition is decisive. The R$ 522 million figure is a broad total of compensation, payroll charges and benefits for the financial year. It does not mean that the men’s professional squad was costing R$ 40 million per month in base salaries. The financial statements also recognize R$ 84.353 million in amortization and write-offs of players’ rights on another line, reinforcing that the answer changes depending on whether the question is about “compensation,” “payroll,” “squad cost” or “total football cost.”
The difference appears even within the same document: operating costs and expenses for men’s football, professional and amateur, totaled R$ 744.836 million in 2025. That total includes far more than compensation and therefore should not be placed in the same column as a payroll ranking.
Vasco: R$ 291 million is the sum of two relevant items, with an audit caveat
In Vasco SAF’s 2025 financial statements, R$ 208.222 million is reported in salaries, payroll charges and employee benefits classified as cost, along with R$ 82.988 million in image rights, also classified as cost. Together, the two amounts reach R$ 291.210 million, in line with the R$ 291 million in the SportsValue ranking.
There is, however, an important caveat for interpreting the figure. The auditor’s report stated that, up to the issuance date, it had not been able to complete the necessary audit procedures on several items, including precisely the R$ 208.222 million in salaries, payroll charges and benefits and the R$ 82.988 million in image rights. The same caveat also mentions R$ 24.267 million in salaries, payroll charges and benefits classified as administrative expenses.
This does not mean the figures are wrong. It means the reader should preserve the limitation identified by the auditor rather than treat the amount as if it had the same degree of verification as an item without a caveat. It also reinforces the need to separate football cost from administrative expenses before attempting to create a single “payroll” figure.
Botafogo: the R$ 335 million for 2025 does not automatically describe the 2026 squad
For Botafogo SAF, SportsValue reports R$ 335 million in salary-related spending in 2025. The figure places the club below Flamengo and Fluminense and above Vasco under this annual scope. R7, using the division by 13, presented a monthly equivalent of approximately R$ 26 million.
The problem is timing. The ranking published in 2026 itself notes that the 2025 squad still included high-cost players, while the club had already gone through important departures since winning the 2024 Copa Libertadores. An average based on the entire 2025 financial year therefore does not track the structure of the 2026 squad in real time.
Botafogo’s financial situation in 2026 also added another layer to the discussion, with news reports about liquidity difficulties and obligations to players. But late payment or ability to pay is a cash-flow and debt issue; it does not, by itself, change the accounting definition of spending recognized in the financial year. Mixing the two topics makes it seem as though “payroll” also measures default, which is not correct.
Why the 2026 figures do not match
The accounting year is not the current payroll
The 2025 financial statements record expenses recognized between January and December of that year. A news report from August 2026, by contrast, may try to estimate what the club is paying at that moment. A player signed in January 2026 does not appear in 2025 spending; an athlete sold in early 2026 may have weighed on nearly the entire previous financial year. Comparing the two without adjusting the period means comparing snapshots from different moments.
The scope of people changes
One source may count only first-team players. Another includes the coaching staff. A financial statement may combine athletes, football-department employees, youth teams, Olympic sports, back-office staff or corporate benefits in the same note. Fluminense’s case makes this explicit by including service providers from other areas in the R$ 521.663 million total.
That is why a figure extracted directly from financial statements can be more official and, at the same time, less specific for the question “how much does the men’s professional squad cost?” Official status and comparability are not the same thing.
Base salary is only one part of compensation
Image rights, signing fees, bonuses, prize payments, vacation pay, 13th salary, FGTS, INSS, PIS, benefits and compensation for service providers may appear on separate lines or be grouped together. A database of individual salaries may exclude several of these components; the financial statements may incorporate them into the cost of the period.
That is why an estimate of the squad’s fixed salaries may be much lower than an annual total of “salary-related spending.” The two figures answer different questions.
Amortization is not salary, but it has become even more relevant
When a club buys a player’s rights, the transfer outlay is generally not recognized in full as salary expense in the month of the signing. The value of the acquired right is recognized as an asset and amortized over the contract, according to the applicable accounting rules. This amortization is an economic cost of the squad, but it is not salary received by the player.
The distinction gained relevance with the CBF Financial Sustainability System. Under the model presented by the governing body, “squad cost” is composed of salaries, payroll charges, image rights and amortization. The structural limit is calculated in relation to the sum of revenues, transfers and capital contributions, with gradual implementation beginning in 2026 and transition years before full effectiveness.
Therefore, a ranking that measures only salaries, image rights and bonuses does not automatically reproduce the SSF metric. Doing so would require reconstructing the regulatory scope, including the relevant amortization and applying the criteria defined by the CBF.
Capology and official financial statements do not use the same universe
Capology is useful for estimating first-team salaries and individual contracts, but the platform itself warns that its figures are estimates and do not represent official amounts. Its definition of base salary excludes image rights, commercial agreements, bonuses and other benefits. The platform also acknowledges that official financial statements often include broader personnel costs, such as youth teams, women’s teams, administrative staff and social contributions, which it does not track in the same way.
That methodological warning explains much of the discrepancy. Using Capology to answer “how much does the first team receive in estimated salaries?” may be appropriate. Using it as a substitute for an accounting line of total costs is not.
The same report changes scale completely when the metric becomes total football cost
SportsValue itself provides a useful test. In the 2025 “salary-related spending” ranking, the order among the four is Flamengo, Fluminense, Botafogo and Vasco, with R$ 696 million, R$ 522 million, R$ 335 million and R$ 291 million. When the report switches to “football costs,” including salaries, operating expenses, signings and transfer costs, the figures jump to approximately R$ 1.124 billion for Botafogo, R$ 1.044 billion for Flamengo, R$ 831 million for Fluminense and R$ 623 million for
Vasco.
That is not a contradiction. It is a different metric. The example shows why a headline that treats “payroll,” “squad cost” and “football cost” as synonyms can even reverse the order of the clubs.
What is actually comparable among the four
For a simple editorial comparison, SportsValue’s annual 2025 scope is the most homogeneous starting point: Flamengo R$ 696 million, Fluminense R$ 522 million, Botafogo R$ 335 million and Vasco R$ 291 million in salary-related spending. It makes it possible to gauge the relative scale of the four during the same financial year and under a declared classification.
For a more rigorous accounting comparison, however, it is necessary to return to the notes in each set of financial statements and check what was included in salaries, image rights, bonuses, payroll charges, administrative staff and other areas. Flamengo and Fluminense clearly show that the same aggregate figure can contain components that do not belong exclusively to the professional squad. In Vasco’s case, the audit caveat needs to accompany the interpretation. At Botafogo, the standardized figure is useful, but it should not be turned without explanation into the current 2026 payroll.
For a regulatory comparison under the SSF, the task is different: it is necessary to follow the CBF concept of squad cost, with salaries, payroll charges, image rights and amortization, as well as the scope and relevant revenues used by the rule. A salary ranking is not enough.
So which club has the largest payroll?
If the question is “which of the four had the highest annual salary-related spending in 2025 under SportsValue’s comparable scope?”, the answer is Flamengo, with about R$ 696 million, followed by Fluminense at R$ 522 million, Botafogo at R$ 335 million and Vasco at R$ 291 million.
If the question is “what is the current monthly payroll of each squad in 2026?”, the 2025 financial statements do not provide that answer on their own. It would be necessary to obtain an updated position on contracts and define beforehand whether the figure includes only fixed salaries or also image rights, payroll charges, bonuses, coaching staff, other employees and provisions.
And if the question is “how much does the squad cost for the CBF SSF?”, the comparison has to include amortization and follow the regulatory concept. That is precisely why the 2026 figures do not match: most of the time, they are not measuring the same thing.
